Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Loses Key Engineer to Google
galdur writes "Microsoft Watch reports Marc Lucovsky, one of Microsoft's key Windows architects has defected to Google. His confidence in Microsoft's ability to ship software seems to have waned, too. Some hypothesize Google working on an OS but in the wake of Google's inroads into Ajax tech applications (GMail, Suggest, Maps), I think Google may have other plans for the chief software architect for Microsoft's .Net My Services ("Hailstorm")" CT Many users are reporting 404s on the Microsoft Watch article, but its working fine for others. Hopefully they'll fix their server soon.
I sometimes wonder if it is ethical to attract the employees of a rival organization (maybe by offering better perks)
fuvoo: watch something
I can't wait to hear all the predictions of how this is the end of Microsoft. Relax folks, a key M$ guy just got a better offer, that's all. If Google does build an operating system, they will have to face the same problem that has held up everyone else: critical mass.
1. They already have their own OS that is specialized to be super reliable for their cluster (read the other Google news item from today). They even refer to it as 'Google OS'. It's really just a specialized Red Hat based kernel (according to the news).
2. This guy made a point of explaining in his blog (when it was up) that Microsoft doesn't ship software, and he admires that Amazon ships software immediately, via the web. Google would obviously appeal to him for this reason.
True, but Google isn't a small startup without the financial/legal capabilities to defend itself anymore, either. Bullies always pick on the weakest - never those that, while still being smaller, might actually pose a challenge.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
I don't think that the limit is the sky. I think the limit is the fact that Microsoft OS is installed on over 90% of world's desktops.
Even Apple is struggling agains Windows and they already have a superior desktop OS, and penetration in audio/video and design markets.
Heck, look at even Linux. It's free, it's useable, it's secure. And it took Linux a long time to be considered a viable desktop alternative.
I like Google's services, but I don't think they could pull off a profitable OS.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
He wrote the famous memo that claimed 63,000 bugs in Windows 2000 gold. Evidently his discontempt for Microsoft's software practices has been boiling for some time. Hope he does well at Google.
can we please ditch this acronym? it was lame last week when whats-his-name had to write a big article about this cool new technology (which has been around in one form or another since at least 1998), it's still lame now, and it will continue to be lame in the future...
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Apart from what others have already said, I think you're missing one key question here: why would Google actually *want* to create their own OS? The dot-com bubble days of "we'll do it just because we can" are over; these days, (most) companies will only do things if they reasonably expect to make money with it.
Furthermore, Google's main expertise is in the field of searching, and so far, literally ALL of its products services have been based around that. Where would an operating system fit in there?
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
consider the google portfolio. It's machine-independent (bar a few niggles like the google deskbar, but concentrate on the web stuff). Email? Check. Usenet/web groups? Check. Contacts? Check. Add a basic wordprocessor and a few niceties like calendaring etc and you can give joesixpack@gmail.com just about everything he'd need via a web interface from any PC he sits at.
Web apps are pretty nice these days: use a browser that supports XUL like Firefox and it's not dissimilar to a real, locally installed app. And who's partnering with Firefox....?
*cough*STAC Electronics*cough* (Their HDD Compression software)
*cough*Corel*cough* (WordPerfect anyone?)
*cough*IBM*cough* (What did they do to OS/2 again?)
I am SURE there are others. Those weren't, for their time, "small" companies with no money to defend themselv's.
bork bork bork!
The immediate goal is not profit, but growth of a "potential". Right now that 90% number you mentioned is getting in a lot of people's way. Reduce that deskop % and you increase your chance to sell your own plus apps to sit on top of it.
Think Xbox. The goal of the xbox was not profit. It was to reduce the % of market-share owned by the PS2 (and to some extent GameCube) so that the Xbox 2 would have a larger profitability margin and have a wider selection of games (meaming Microsoft intends to actually make $$ on the hardware this time).
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
Google Chat
Google IM
Google portal
Google hosting
Google Forum's
A Google version of .Net Passport
Google WAP and mobile device services (which would make sense if you take into account the recent push for technology in this area).
They are definately in a position to do such thing's without placing too much effort into other area's of the I.T world. I can not see Google creating an OS, licensing that goes with it, HCL's etc etc.
Sure, maybe they could put it out and together with Linux and Apple erode some of Microsoft's dominance.
However, it seems to me that the payoff would not be so great in the end. The consumer would just say: "Why would I pay 300 bucks for a GoogleOS, when I can get Windows for 150?"
No matter what Google offers, Microsoft can undercut it.
And in the end, Google is for the most part OS independant. Their focus is on using the Web, what could they possibly gain by having the control of the hardware on a user's PC? This way Microsoft has to deal with all the drivers and security issues, Google just rides for free on top of it.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Right now, Bill Gates is in his office having a temper tantrum.
Wait, don't mod this as 'funny' because I'm completely serious.
From what we know about Sir Bill, he easily loses his temper, especially when someone other than Microsoft is succeeding in the technology marketplace. Google is succeeding at doing many of the things Microsoft wants to be doing right now. Google is taking the 'net to the next level -- they're turning it into a "platform" the way Netscape wanted to. Netscape failed to do this mainly because their engineers got a little too full of themselves a little too quickly, but Google appears to not be making this mistake. They're careful about who they hire and they're careful not to make too much of their own noise -- they just create new technology and let the buzz appear on its own.
Right now, Bill Gates is in his office screaming at his top-level henchmen. He's ordering them to do whatever it takes to kill Google, just as he ordered them to do whatever it takes to kill Netscape back in 1997.
It's going to be an ugly show.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Change your definition of "thin" and "apps" and it's happening now. What is slashdot, if not a web app? What's my PII with it's 20GB hard drive, if not a thin client? ( not that it's what I'm using now, but it would work, I'm making a point here ).
they could easily repurpose a linux distro + wine + firefox into a very OSX like OS for intel/amd that is, to some extent, windows compatible.
"easily" is a matter of opinion, but "why" and how successful it would be are different matters, since what you're talking about already exists in one form or another. What I'm looking for is the business case... and it's just not there. Google's services ( like Yahoo's ) aren't about thin clients, they're about accessing data regardless of what computer you're using ( and leveraging search tech to organize it all and sell targeted ads ). Making a multi-OS browser makes sense for them. Making a server-side development platform makes sense for them. Making an OS? Not so much. They have an OS- it's called Linux.
And, yes, they really are just another "yahoo-like empire" in the final analysis... they just seem to be looking to out-Yahoo Yahoo. Given the success of Yahoo, even with how Yahoo has stagnated over the past few years, it seems like a good plan to me - there's plenty of room to improve on Yahoo, as Google has already shown.
From the article:
When a Microsoft engineer fixes a minor defect, makes something faster or better, makes an API more functional and complete, how do they "ship" that software to me? I know the answer and so do you... The software sits in a source code control system for a minimum of two years (significantly longer for some of the early Longhorn code). At some point, the product that the fix is a part of will "ship" meaning that CD's will be pressed and delivered to customers and OEM's. In best case scenarios, the software will reach end users a few months after the Release To Manufacturing (RTM) date. In many cases, particularly for users working in large corporations, they won't see the software for a year or more post RTM...
While this is true of major software releases and service packs, it's certainly not true of critical updates, is it? And besides, software on the scale of Longhorn or Office 2006 is vastly different than a point-and-click problem on a web page.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
I agree, I have noticed this as well. Nowadays, when I read a slashdot story I immediately imagine what the apple plugs would be.
/usr/opt/KDE/desktop_prefs.ini file to stop that.
Thanks for understanding. To be fair, i get annoyed at all the Linux plugs too. I know that this is a geek site, but some of them are just retarded:
poster1: I hate how Windows XP groups stuff together into this little list in the Taskbar.
poster2: You should just switch to linux. If you run KDE on mandrake, all you have to do is hand edit the
poster3: That's a lot of work! you should switch to Gentoo, where all you have to do is 'emerge -03 --no_group KDE' and you're done!
I guess now it's the Age Of The Apple Partyline...
thanks.
do() || do_not();
Right now, Bill Gates is in his office screaming at his top-level henchmen. He's ordering them to do whatever it takes to kill Google, just as he ordered them to do whatever it takes to kill Netscape back in 1997.
Good post, BTW.
As I understand it, MS killed Netscape by giving away IE and bundling IIS with Windows. How could Netscape survive if they had to give away their product for free to compete? They weren't a services company like Google (not mostly, anyway).
Google is different. Google gives all of its products (services) away for free already (not counting its appliances, which are niche products). The end-users get all of Google's services for free. So how can Microsoft kill Google? How can Microsoft take away their revenue stream? Just as MS has critical mass with Windows, Google has critical mass with search and AdWords. How can either overcome the other in their respective areas? (Not that I think Google is going to make an OS; that would make no sense at all to me.)
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
What does Google stand to gain by writing their own OS? Or, more likely, if they are indeed creating a new OS, will it be built heavily off of Linux or BSD?
:-/
Given the low margins, intense competition, high barriers-to-entry (like MSFT's 95% desktop market share), high initial capital investment required (startup costs), and so on, I really don't see a market for a new OS at all. There's no way Google can market a proprietary OS to compete in the server space -- Linux, being free, is dominating there (alongside Win2k/2k3), and will for the foreseeable future. The desktop space is even bleaker, again, due to MSFT's controlling 95% of the market and the massive installed base of users, apps, etc. that goes along with such a large user base.
I truly don't understand the reasoning behind a supposed Google OS... They have made themselves a fantastic info warehouse/data-mining portal for the masses, making knowledge & info formerly only barely-available to wealthy customers available to everyone for nearly-free, leveraging the "market" of links available on trillions of webpages (among other factors in their algorithm, no doubt). But that's a set of services best provided to existing OS's over the Internet - not from a brand-new OS.
Now, if Google is going to make a modified GNU/Linux distribution... that could have some considerable potential, b/c much of the heavy-lifting has already been done and there's a large enough base of users they could cater to... But what would they offer over other Linux distros to make Google's distro stand out? A better file-searching tool, probably, but what else? A replacement for X11/XOrg? Perhaps not, as this is entering ito GUI coding, something they as a company don't do much of - or at least, the GUI stuff they do isn't made public (the desktop search and IE Google bar aside)...
So even on that idea, I'm having a hard time imagining what they have up their sleeve, and therefore, a hard time imagining why they'd bother in the first place.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
But I doubt that is what Google wants to do anyway. What would they enter a crowded market and compete with all the Linux distros out there? It doesn't really fit with their portfolio.
There is no chance whatsoever that Google will set out to build its own OS. Linux works perfectly well and Google is well aware that they have more to gain by contributing to the common development pool.
No, Google is setting out to build a web service infrastructure, powered by its 100,000 node (at last count) Linux supercomputer. And after all, this guy's job at Microsoft was to build a web infrastructure.
By the way, it is very doubtful that in California he can be prevented from working in his area of expertise, no matter what his employment contract with Microsoft says.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I know this just barely exceeds your statute of limitations, but how about two:
Sun (Solaris 2.x was their "NT")
Apple (Mac OS X)
This isn't to belittle Microsoft's accomplishment, but to claim they are the only company would be in error, as several OS vendors have had to go through at least one overhaul, and convince their user bases to stick with them through the transition.
At the risk of being modded down, I'd have to say 40,000 engineers there might disagree with you.
I think the limit is the fact that Microsoft OS is installed on over 90% of world's desktops
Remember when Microsoft was installed on over 95% of the world's desktops?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I've always understood that while you can state venue, you can't enforce the same if it interferes with an individual's right to work within a state that doesn't accept those contracts. Basically speaking, while you COULD sue them in WA, they'd have to answer to the same sort of suit in Texas brought against them.
Typically, they won't bother with the non-compete clauses when you're in a state that prohibits them and holds right to work over all else- it's much, much more expensive than it's ever worth to them to keep an employee working for a competitor.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas